Paula Hawks declares “I stand proudly with Planned Parenthood.” Good luck with that.

And today we have Paula Hawks tweeting that she “stands proudly with Planned Parenthood,” who has been in the news lately for admitting they harvest fetal tissue for medical experimentation.

And Hawks doubles down and goes after Congresswoman Noem for introducing legislation to defund Planned Parenthood for the practice, but also seeking constituent input.

Could the Hawks campaign be the shortest campaign in the history of South Dakota?

40 thoughts on “Paula Hawks declares “I stand proudly with Planned Parenthood.” Good luck with that.”

  1. What makes me really sad is the fact that so few people are hearing about the Planned Parenthood videos. My hubby was at a church group meeting this morning and asked the others there about this, and they hadn’t even heard about it. And this was at a Catholic church meeting! Most people still listen only to the MSM and if that media outlet ignores an issue (and you can bet they are ignoring this one!), these people don’t even know what is going on. So without knowing about these videos, and with little other information other than from those spewing that being against Planned Parenthood is part of the GOP war on women, more people will be inclined to believe the Paula Hawks story. Really sad.

    1. Springer, I think you may have hit part of the core of the problem with our government.

      People just don’t care.

      The MSM won’t dig beyond the next headline. Unless there cause people won’t talk about it.

      Politics is ugly. Because we want to be nice, we don’t talk about it.

      Pat keep shining the light on the truth, the entire truth.

  2. Big mistake. It’s one thing to be pro-choice and another to be for the harvesting of body parts. Democrats have calculated that they will not suffer any consequences from this issue. I think they are seriously wrong in that calculation but it will take sometime before there are any consequences.

    Hawks was never going to win anyway but she could have run a strong campaign as a centrist Democrat and revitalized the SDDP. Not anymore. Elizabeth Warren positions don’t sell in SD. Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson positions used to. It’s time SD Democrats start acting like SD Democrats and not DC Democrats.

    (I would fall into the strongly pro-life category)

    1. To read your pathetic post you would think that Planned Parenthood is set up solely to profit off the sale of embryonic tissue. Of course, that is so far from the truth it has absolutely no credibility.

      You are right (about one thing only). Elizabeth Warren’s ideas on choice and Planned Parenthood don’t resonate with the majority of voters in South Dakota.

      But they do resonate across all the states that actually count. When are you going to learn that your ideas don’t really count in the grand scheme of things if you come from South Dakota? No votes. No power. Welfare state. Backwards ideas. Not exactly leadership material…

      1. You sound like a perfect candidate to move to one of those states that count. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

      2. Boy, you sure sound like a jackass, Heisenberg. Why is it socialist/liberals always think they are so smart while we is allus so dumb? By talking down to conservatives, you show yourself to be an elitist idiot who should not be taken seriously as you obviously think yourself smarter than you actually are-a typical left mistake.

    2. However, being pro-choice (or more accurately, pro-death to unborn children) results in dead bodies from which to harvest body parts. Abortion supporters already support the death of the infant, so why should they act all self-righteous about using the baby whose head was crushed for medical experiments?

  3. While I admire her convection to her beliefs. There comes a time to jump ship. Planned Parenthood is like the Titanic that hit an ice berg, and going down. The only question who will go down with the ship of Planned Parenthood

  4. Anybody got a fork to stick I it, this one’s done (before it really started)

  5. I thought Pat was unfairly critical of Hawks yesterday, but she’s committing political suicide now. At least half of the pro-abortion crowd is turning against Planned Parenthood over this.

  6. General comments.

    Hawks appears to be utterly convinced of the “goodness” of abortion. This is a position that is beyond saying abortion is a woman’s choice. When I have had the chance to dive deep in conversation with such a person, I have always found two common underpinnings.

    1). The world has too many people and often too many of them aren’t “bright and pretty” or are otherwise inferior. It is really Sanger-ish at its core.

    2). Childbirth and motherhood is a ball and chain around women, preventing them from ever achieving freedom and fulfillment. If they have children (one or two), they rationalize it because there children belong to #1 above.

    To a person who thinks abortion is at its core a good thing, their very core (alluded to by MC) allows them to do nothing but react against any threat to what they consider a fundamental “good” regardless of any negative associated with abortion, including the clinical, callous comments heard on these videos.

    That said, her Tweet has two consequences.

    1). She allowed her introduction to a broader audience of voters to be dominated by a position held by a small slice of Americans and even a smaller slice of South Dakotans-abortion is good. Most people who support the right to an abortion to be a result of a tragic situation vs. a good in and of itself. Her ability to expand her base is severely harmed because the view of her will be substantially she holds an extreme view abortion is a good.

    2). It will however generate great loyalty within that small slice of America and probably infuse her campaign with a source of funds with which to have a campaign. She will ultimately get trounced but now Noem will have to spend some of her campaign dollars.

    3). Finally, it is going to have a debilitating impact on the SDDP’s effort to broaden its base. For instance, there a lot of what I call Dorothy Day Catholics who are quite liberal but opposed to abortion. They want to vote Democrat and often do by rationalizing this person’s pro-abortion position isn’t going to change the current reality. However, if the candidate’s core thinks abortion is a fundamental good, they will not turn the other way.

    Prediction: Paula Hawks will not only lose all of the traditional GOP legislative Districts but will also lose the NE Democrat part of SD where pro-life Democrats are close to a majority if not the majority of Democrats.

    We saw the electoral consequences of advocating the most extreme position on abortion in the last Governor’s campaign when Susan Wismer of NE SD lost most of the most heavily Democrat precincts in SD not on a reservation.

  7. I didn’t realize that we were a one issue state. Does the election of our one House of Representatives seat come down to one issue? I always figured that SD citizens listened to both sides of the story and then made up their minds after listening to the candidates talk about issues. Reading the comments above it seems that there is one issue, and due to the fact that this is a contentious issue the candidates positions are cemented and irrefutable or unchangeable with further evidence to the contrary. This is just one of the many issues facing SD and just another example of why our political process is broken.

    1. We aren’t a one issue state. In fact I would say we are much less socially conservative than we get credit for being. We voted against the abortion bans twice, we were the state that was the closest vote of the people on the marriage law being one man and one woman. We are a libertarian leaning state when it comes to many social issues.

      But just because SD doesn’t want to ban abortions doesn’t mean we want to harvest baby parts for profit. Paula Hawks essentially does. That’s messed up.

      What happened to the Bill Clinton position of “Safe, Legal and Rare” in the Democrat Party? That sells in most states – even SD voters will go along with that position to a point. But SD voters will never embrace selling baby hearts, livers and whatever else can be salvaged.

      Also isn’t Planned Parenthood supposed to be looking out for the health of the mother? How is twisting the baby around in the womb to not damage baby body parts not putting the mother at greater risk?

      She really messed up. Brendan Johnson should be asked what he thinks about this issue too and so should SHS.

    2. Hawks is also against Keystone and for the idiotic Obama Iran deal? How many more things do we need to know about Hawks before we realize she is not a person who should be in any position of power?

  8. Paula Hawks is a fool. Kristi Noem need only run a copy of the above info and remind folks of the baby harvesting being done by PP. with that single advertisement, Noem wins in a landslide. D’s and R’s alike are all in agreement, selling baby parts is indefensible and anyone who supports the purveyors of this brutal evil isn’t worthy of attention, much less a vote. This is not a political issue, as she would like to think. This is a human issue and Hawks is on the wrong side.

  9. Joel,

    There are issues which are one of many where universal agreement on all Is impossible. And there are those positions which go beyond the pale in most company.

    Supporting slavery, gassing Jews, pedophilia, AND harvesting body parts for profit are one’s that transcend all other positions. If a candidate said they supported on of the above, would you be saying “c’mon, it’s just one issue?”

    And, yes, I think they are all patently evil as they deny any and all of the victims basic human dignity.

    Side note: One of the genie’s out of the bottle from these videos is the pro-abortionists can no longer say this is ONLY about “women’s health” unless they denounce Planned Parenthood which made it clear there is components of their services that puts “women’s health” second.

  10. Human fetal tissue is vital to research. It has been used, legally and ethically, in research into autism, HIV, Parkinsons, hepatitis, macular degeneration, Alzheimers… To ban the practice would cripple scientific inquiry into human health.

    Check out the NIH (just one agency) funding of fetal tissue research in 2014:

    ..Or were you going to rely on prayer alone to cure you?

      1. You obviously don’t think so – especially not those lives which could be helped by this research.

  11. Crossgrain,

    Thanks for reinforcing my point- The abortion industry isn’t just about “women’s health” but also procuring research materials.

    And, since research justifies abortion, why shouldn’t we just legalize women’s right to become pregnant for the purpose of being a petri dish of research material? They can avoid any disclosure obligations to the male by just buying the sperm at a sperm bank.

    Or, why not allow people to advertise their excess kidney or cornea or bone marrow etc. for harvesting for profit?

    1. Abortion is legal, end of strawman discussion.

      Now, what we do with the byproducts of that legal procedure is what we’re actually talking about here. Would you rather they just dumped the fetal tissue into the nearest toilet? Or should some good come out of those byproducts where countless human lives can be saved?

      1. in your mind, it is perfectly okay to buy and sell parts? How much for a heart? a brain? Maybe we need a set up an human parts exchange. After all, parts are parts.

        1. Not at all. Selling body parts is illegal. However, the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 provides “…reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”

          Planned Parenthood is donating the actual tissue. The $30-$100 fees spoken about in the videos would hardly be unreasonable (much less even profitable) when you’re talking about preserving, shipping, and storing organic tissues.

          Again, would you rather they just dumped it down the garbage disposal?

          1. Byproducts? So tiny human hearts, livers, brains are byproducts? You are a sick, morally bankrupt individual. You Crossgrain, are the problem in this country. You think your life is more important. You are selfish. And you are wrong about this. Those aren’t byproducts of anything, they are baby parts. Human parts. So I ask you, aren’t you simply a byproduct too, albeit a much older one? It would seem you believe that the rest of society should benefit from the research on byproducts? If so, andgiven your logic, you should do the charitable thing, you should be taken to a place where you can be dismembered (carefully and without any unnecessary crushing) and we can then study your brain to see just what the hell is wrong with you, in hopes that none of the rest of us acquire your disease. To answer your question though, I would rather those babies were buried or cremated than sliced up like animals, because I for one would rather die than knowingly benefit from testing done on people who were murdered.

            1. I’m not a byproduct of an abortion. My parents wanted to become pregnant with me, so what you endorse would be murder since, you know, I’ve already been born and all. And of course that’s the crux of the whole discussion: when does a person become a person and not just a precursor tissue… and we obviously don’t agree on that point.

              I do thank your for your honesty, however. And, yes, I am listed as an organ donor, so your point is somewhat blunted I suppose. I also suspect that many of those suffering from HIV infections are thankful that research into their affliction can be largely attributed to the study and use of the tissues in question. The needs of the many and allt that.

              I also thank you for your candid response as to what to do with those tissues, though I question some aspects of how that might work: Who pays for the burial/cremation, and where are they interred? Before you say, “Churches!”, what if the fetus was from a Hindu woman? What if the woman receiving the abortion doesn’t want cremation/burial, and would rather donate the tissue?

              Finally, I’ll thank you not to judge my morality. We’ll leave that to God.

              1. How does being an organ donor blunt my point in any way? I am too by the way. But we chose that for ourselves and those we may help, didnt we? Aha! Choice. We did it. Did that baby have choice in donating his/her organs? No. Someone chose for them. Do we have a right to choose tha for others?

                Clearly you are right, we disagree on when a person is a person. And that is the crux… When do we become human?

                You seem to advocate sometime after birth or at the moment of birth. But why start there? Why not define it as after your first word is uttered? Or should it be when we go through puberty? Maybe once we’ve earned the right to vote? Or drink alcohol? Hmmm, how shall we define personhood? I happen to think a person is a person when the process kicks off. You seem to be arguing some arbitrary later point in the chain? Why? And how do you pick? What non-arbitrary method can you use to find the answer?

                What do you suppose these tiny beings are then in their mother’s wombs? Non-persons who would otherwise grow into some other life form? Sounds preposterous, no? So I ask, If not a person, why are these very human organs being harvested against their will and then being shipped off to other humans for study and research? They aren’t mouse or pig organs. Are they? What sort of tissue is it in your world if not human?

                And you are so correct, God will be the ultimate judge. I will continue to pray for you and all the others who take that chosen path. His Book encourages us to try to bring the lost sheep back to the flock. And I will continue to try. You certainly won’t now be able to use the excuse that you weren’t part of the conversation.

                1. Oh, and I was referring to you being a byproduct of conception…clearly not of abortion. Though interestingly there are a number of folks who are walking this world today who were supposed to be byproducts of abortion, but lo and behold, they were saved (albeit scarred) and now are in fact living byproducts of abortion. Funny how that works, no?

                2. These comments are getting too thin for much continued discussion!

                  My being an organ donor blunts your point that my “morally bankrupt” self needs to have his brain examined. It may happen in due time so no need to murder me yet.

                  As far as when life begins, until it’s a human, it’s not. Your argument is silly in that you arbitrarily select conception as the starting point, which on its face sounds reasonable, but then, why not as egg or sperm? The formation of complex chemical processes? The presence of amino acids? The fusion of atoms with more than two electrons? Why don’t we preserve life at it’s source: the sun! But why stop there? Preserve life at stellar nurseries! Ban gamma ray bursts!

                  But I digress. My own definition of when tissue becomes human is when that blob of tissue can survive on its own with the best practical modern medicine… which is certainly no more arbitrary a point than your own.

                  1. Well, that’s unique if nothing else so I suppose you deserve some credit for creativity. “Until it’s human, it’s not.”?? Now there’s a definition I’ve not heard before. What if I don’t deem you yet human, Crossgrain? You say you are, but what if the rest of us disagree? Who decides if you’re human? You? Me? Some random third party?

                    The science of reproduction would seem to prove unequivocally otherwise, but no sense debating scientific realities. You have a human egg. You have a human sperm. Each of them alone can do nothing to create new life. Together though??? They start a process that is scientifically (not religiously) proven to be the beginning of a new life. Cells are now in motion, dividing, becoming some new creation. And what is that creation going to develop into? How’s that arbitrary? It’s nature. It’s a fundamental law of the universe. I didn’t make it up. It just is. (I’m sorry you can’t coalesce your brain cells around that, but that doesn’t make it arbitrary.)

                    Crossgrain, you’re grasping at straws and stumbling on marbles. Good luck explaining your definition of what constitutes life at the aforementioned judgment day.

                    If we the readers are to believe your definition of when life becomes life, then the reverse should also be true, right? If so, there are literally, right this second, thousands of “blobs of tissue” in hospitals across America because they’re using medical miracles to stay alive (even though they may be 35, 52, 80 years-old). Many will eventually no longer need the medical assistance and will resume “living on their own” but I guess they were just non-human there for a moment or two, huh? Imagine their surprise when the ventilator goes away or the heart defibrillator kicks in and they wake up and suddenly are human again!

                    You’re spewing nonsense. Facts and truth trump you on this one.

                    1. I did say WITH the best modern practical medicine, so 90% of your argument is void. Re-read and get back to me.

  12. Crossgrain,

    Yep, I think you and Paula should go with that argument- by-product of a legal procedure.

    1. Well, that is what we’re talking about.

      Of course, I don’t get paid to write political sound-bites, so I’m sure there’s a slightly less crude way of saying it.


  13. Crossgrain,

    There is no reason to speak about this using euphemisms because as you say “that is what we’re talking about.” The people are craving honest politicians and an honest discussion of the issues.

    1. If that’s what the people are craving, then why are we even talking about this? Honesty got flushed with the non-selling fetus parts the second our dishonest representatives decided to make Planned Parenthood funding an issue over these less than honest videos.

      So, I’d still like to see an honest discussion of these facts:
      *The procedure which produces the tissue is legal.
      *Planned Parenthood is not making a profit off the sale of the tissue.
      *The tissue is required for finding mechanisms and cures for many medical conditions.

  14. Crossgrain,

    Since every video is released from beginning and end, what specifically is dishonest about the videos? Is the person from PP telling lies?

    Regarding your “facts:”

    1) The procedure is an abortion. Why are you using an euphemism? Is there something you are trying to hide?

    2) The tissue is organs from a late-term baby killed for research material. Why are you using an euphemism? Is there something you are trying to hide?

    3) If PP isn’t making a profit, why are they willing to do the procedure in a way which is better for preserving the baby’s organs instead of what is safest for the mother? Or are you admitting that abortion isn’t really about women’s health but is instead about getting baby parts for research? Its one or the other. It can’t be both. I’ll let you pick which one.

    4) If this was an innocuous as you seem to be asserting and serves the interests of research, why doesn’t Planned Parenthood just publish their costs of providing the “research material” on their website? If you have nothing to hide and it is only about cost recovery, why negotiate price? And why is the negotiations being done by people in senior management if this was just a break-even endeavor?

    1. Playing semantic games rather than “honest discussion”, eh? I won’t bother in that case. I’ll be up with [Anonymous August 7, 2015 at 6:06 am] who actually bothered to discuss the issue… albeit in rather combative terms.

Comments are closed.